REPUBLICANS ARE MISREPESENTING CRITICAL RACE THEORY

 

The latest flashpoint in the ongoing cultural wars over how and what public school students should learn is the concept of critical race theory (CRT). Critical race theory is a way of looking at our history of racism with the goal of restructuring imbedded discrimination. It is an academic construct based on the well-documented understanding that systemic racism is a social, economic and cultural historical fact. CRT is directed against racism in institutions and long-standing practices, not individuals or white America as a class.   

Right wing elected officials and their supporters will back any action, which denies that racism is common and systemic. Many Republicans seem to believe that racism will end when the nation stops discussing it. Attacking CRT has become their latest method to accomplish this goal. They claim that CRT is an ideological manifesto that seeks to demonize white people in the past and present for developing or supporting systemic racism. In fact, CRT is simply a factual recognition of historical events that have led to numerous long-standing institutional examples of systemic racism. Adherents of CRT believe that by acknowledging and discussing systemic racism we can move forward as a nation in a positive way.  

The concept of CRT has existed since the early 1960s when Derrick Bell, an African American Harvard law professor (born and raised in Pittsburgh) developed the idea as a reaction to the civil rights movement. His aim was to move the country toward a culture based on racial equity by examining the root causes of white supremacy.

For decades, the theory remained a little known discussion point, debated only in academic circles. CRT broke into the mainstream with the murder of George Floyd in May 2020 and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. Right wing commentators exploited the post Floyd nation-wide demonstrations as a way of introducing critical race theory to a white audience suspicious of the Black call for justice. It became the right wing symbol of an aggressive new ideology to malign all white people. In fact, the theory was neither new, nor aggressive. Nor was it designed to paint all whites as racist.

Since 2020, CRT has become a major talking point in Republican political campaigns around the country. The hope is that this “dangerous concept”, misrepresented on Fox News and other conservative media, will sweep them into office. Remarkably, no public school in America had critical race theory as part of its curriculum. Nonetheless, states governed by Republican legislatures have now passed laws to prohibit discussing CRT. Predictively, these misplaced legislative efforts have been expanded to limit how teachers can present racism in any context and to curtail racial and diversity initiatives in education. 

Republican efforts to ban CRT and related anti-racist programs offer no better example of how systemic racism continues its long saga in American education. A recent history on the teaching of race in America (Teaching White Supremacy by Donald Yacovone) illustrates the enduring tradition of racism presented in public school textbooks.

The author examined hundreds of school texts distributed by the nation’s leading publishing houses from the early nineteenth century to the 1980s. He found that public education promoted white supremacy by saying little about slavery or portraying it as a positive institution that helped lift “savage” blacks into the realm of civilization.

The most popular history and civic texts taught three prevalent themes to young students well into the 1960s. First, that white superiority and Black inferiority were an acceptable part of American culture, including accounts of the nation’s past. Second, that the Civil War emancipation was a cleansing event that marked the end of further wide-scale racism in America. Third, that reconstruction provided white students with an easy explanation for ongoing white privlege. The argument was that during reconstruction African Americans failed to take advantage of an opportunity to progress and therefore could not complain about their unequal status.

Systemic racism is not limited to the United States.  Democratic forms of government do not eradicate it. In addition, CRT is relevant in nations where Blacks are in the overwhelming majority. Consider South Africa where in one election, a nation long divided into racial castes controlled by a white minority was turned upside down. After 1994, long disenfranchised people of color now wielded political dominance over the white minority.

Unfortunately, South Africa underwent immense political change while remaining on the same dismal, white dominated, economic track. Today, the unemployment rate remains at thirty percent. Thirty million Blacks live below the national poverty line. Twenty companies control eighty percent of the nation’s capital assets. Almost all are white owned.

White privlege remains as strong in South Africa as it was during apartheid. Whites control all the best schools, employment opportunities and agricultural land holdings. The Black middle class has found it difficult to penetrate into the white-managed mainstream of economic activity.

Clearly, systemic racism is a widespread, global reality. Solutions are only possible by admitting the problem exists and developing programs to break it down. In 2021, the America Civil Liberties Union released the following statement: “Our country needs to acknowledge its history of systemic racism and reckon with present day impacts of racial discrimination – this includes being able to teach and talk about these concepts in our schools.” Without this open approach, our nation is destined to perpetuate systemic racism for generations to come.

 

 

 

A WEEKEND OF REFLECTION

The weekend of September 9-11, 2022 offered some much-needed relief from a summer of rising inflation, revelations regarding former President Trump and the never-ending Pennsylvania campaign ads.  Four weekend events, each with very different circumstances, helped to place us in a more reflective state of mind.

The Death of Queen Elizabeth.  The United Kingdom is suffering through a period of economic and political turmoil far worse than the United States. There have been four conservative party Prime Ministers over the past ten years.  Each successor’s time in office has been more tumultuous than the former. Inflation is at double digits and economists predict a devastating 20% rate in 2023. Household energy bills are soaring due to dependence on Russian gas. The National Health Service is under pressure with 6.7 million patients waiting to receive scheduled care.

After observing the national outpouring of grief and solidarity following the death of Queen Elizabeth, two factors stand out. First, a nation with far greater problems than the United States was able to overcome political differences in a period of national mourning. Second, there has been an English monarchy for over 1200 years. This proves once again that institutions matter in bringing a diverse population together at a time of national sorrow.

Why are we Americans so fascinated by the British royal family? There is certainly a breath of fresh apolitical air associated with the crown. Though the King or Queen is officially the sovereign head of state, there has been no royal exercise of political power in over three hundred years. The Queen never revealed her political views.

Perhaps the major factor explaining America’s royal obsession is the love of status and celebrity. A weekend of ancient traditions and pageantry captured the airways, replacing repetitive, political talking heads. We were all happy that Princes William and Harry reconciled for the funeral. We can only hope that members of Congress could do the same.

The 9/11 Anniversary. When the media was not focused on the United Kingdom, it was covering solemn ceremonies related to the 9/11 anniversary. There is an enduring, but slowly changing impact of the 9/11 attacks on the national mood. Many Americans who are old enough to remember the day, name the attacks as their top historical event. Conversely, an ever-growing number of citizens have no personal memory of 9/11 and its aftermath.

I recently viewed a photograph of both Hillary and Bill Clinton, Republican Governor George Pataki, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator Chuck Schumer standing together waving flags, shortly after 9/11.  I reflected on whether our nation could ever again come together at a time of sadness and patriotism. Following 9/11, no one sought political advantage against the Bush presidency for the intelligence shortcomings that may have prevented the attack.  I fear that today the allure of short-term political advantage would outweigh such a national response of public unity.

Military Gains by Ukraine. Many Americans lost focus on the war in Ukraine as the summer months produced a stalemate and the news cycle moved onto other topics. That changed over this important weekend when Ukrainian forces launched a counteroffensive that recaptured 6,000 sq. km. from the Russians. The Ukrainian push to retake ground all but wiped out the hard-fought gains made by Kremlin forces this spring.

How this conflict will end is unknown. Last February, no one predicted that the Ukrainians could hold out for this long against the overwhelming force of a larger, authoritarian nuclear power. The fact that Russia controlled the energy supply of much of Europe seemed to make the Ukrainian cause a losing proposition. However, a new face of freedom, through struggle and sacrifice in defense of democracy, has come from this very unlikely place.

Bipartisan support for Ukraine remains strong in Congress. It continues to pass massive aid packages for the country. According to a poll taken in late August, a majority of Americans believe that the United States should continue to support Ukraine until there is a complete withdrawal of Russian troops. Ironically, the country is more united on this issue than whether Donald Trump lost the election or whether the attack on the Capitol sought to disrupt the orderly transfer of government.

The Return of Football. The weekend under discussion also saw the return of the National Football League.  The NFL has been the unquestioned sports entertainment king of attendance, TV ratings, merchandise and revenue for years. There is no sign of slowing. The NFL now markets extensively to nontraditional sports fans, weaving itself into the fabric of popular culture. Athletes have become entertainment icons, more recognizable than our elected leaders.

Whether admiration for this capitalistic juggernaut is warranted is beside the point. Where almost everything in our world today is divided along political lines, the NFL is a welcome exception. It is a sport that cuts across political, social and racial differences to unite communities. When Donald Trump criticized the NFL in 2017 for players kneeling during the national anthem, it had little effect on its popularity.

Weekends like September 9-11, 2022 are important reminders that there are themes and events that continue to unite the citizens of our country. We must take time to reflect on history. We must reflect on our place in the world and remember that sometimes democracy must be preserved with blood and treasure.  We must continue rooting for our football team alongside our hometown political adversaries.

 

 

THE DISUNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

Two recent political speeches are instructive in understanding the discouraging divide in America.  First, President Biden spoke in Philadelphia describing the upcoming midterm elections as “a battle for the soul of America.” For the first time, he assailed not only the former president but also his followers in the Make America Great Again movement. He concluded that the MAGA agenda has no place in our political process and has become a threat to democracy.

Biden supported his conclusion by describing MAGA positions that: 1) reject the results of the last presidential election, 2) would eliminate all  abortion, 3) attack the FBI and Justice Department for doing their jobs and 4) seek to restrict voter access to the ballot box. He was careful in his remarks not to paint all Republicans as MAGA supporters.

Two days later, former president Trump gave a two-hour speech in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania. The event was scheduled to support the campaigns of Republican candidates running for Governor (Doug Mastriano) and for the Senate (Mehmet Oz). Predictively, the speech quickly drifted off into another polemic of grievances and lies. Among Trump’s comments, President Biden was labeled “an enemy of the state” and the FBI and Department of Justice were called “vicious monsters.”

Midterm elections are usually a voter referendum on the political party of the president.  This is especially the case when the party also controls Congress. Biden’s attempt to make the midterms a referendum on a former president is unprecedented. However, there is something far more troubling than caustic political rhetoric and the sorry state of national politics. In modern times, issues that matter most in peoples’ lives are often being formulated at the state, not the national level. In deciding these issues, the individual states of our republic are drifting so far apart that Lincoln’s description of “a house divided” is now an appropriate description of America’s political future.

Consider the following divergent public policies on abortion, gun control, immigration and voting rights recently adopted by various states:

·      When all the states have responded to the Supreme Court overturning of Roe, it is expected that half will have eliminated or severely curtailed access to abortion.

·      Mississippi now bans all abortions, vaccine mandates, the teaching of balanced racial history and transgender students participating in sports based on the gender with which they identify.

·      California adopted a law that protects people who come to the state to get or facilitate an abortion against legal actions filed in states where abortion is banned. The Governor is dangling California tax credits in front of companies that are seeking to move out of conservative states that limit reproductive, gay and transgender rights.

·      Connecticut has expanded access to abortion by allowing physician assistants and certified midwives to perform them.

·      In 2020, ten liberal states adopted new restrictions on the purchase or carry of firearms.

·      Twenty-three conservative states now allow “permitless carry” which removes all restrictions on gun owners being armed in public.

·      California has defacto legalized undocumented immigrants by being the first state to offer Medicaid and health insurance available for poor citizens to all immigrants, regardless of status.

·       In Texas, the Governor has authorized the state police to return unauthorized immigrants back to the border. He is working to withhold payment for undocumented children to attend Texas public schools.

·      Twenty-nine states have expanded access to voting by mail while thirteen states have restricted it.

There are many other examples ranging from climate change, to the Affordable Care Act, to public health issues. Not since the Civil War has the tenth amendment of the Constitution (reserving to the states the powers not delegated to the federal government) become such an important factor in American politics.

The impact of states’ rights is bound to get worse. In 2020 there were thirty-seven states in which one political party controlled both the governorship and both chambers of the state legislature. When partisanship prevents congressional action, individual states can move quickly to pass legislation opposed by half the nation. Moreover, the conservative Supreme Court has signaled its intent to follow up on the abortion decision by handing back other critical policy and cultural issues to the states.

What is to be done as America becomes more disunited? At some point, there will be a realization that there is no path toward reconciliation. There will be an admission that the United States is no longer a cohesive citizenry capable of moving forward as a nation. A new arrangement will be required that matches political form to political substance.

Partial defederalization, perhaps similar to the European Union model (a political and economic union of sovereign states) could serve this purpose, though it is fraught with difficulties. Blue states do not want to disadvantage poorer Americans living in conservative states. Red states, despite their attacks against national government, benefit more from federal programs and the distribution of tax dollars.

The alternative is to employ something in short supply — compromise. It should be possible to restore national political equilibrium if Congress radically changes the way it does business. The two political parties can no longer be more extreme than the voters they represent. Primary elections and gerrymandering must be reformed.

Catholic Ireland adopted a national, middle of the road, abortion policy. All of Europe passed sensible gun control, health care, education and climate change laws. These “United States” can do the same.

 

 

 

DOING GOOD IS COMPLICATED

 

“Everything sucks is not helpful. The relevant question is what can we do?” William MacAskill

As the summer winds down, what is left of the dwindling print press has focused on a positive topic to counter all of the bad news splashed across the headlines. Prominent articles on “altruism” or “the art of doing good” were featured in Time magazine (cover, August 22) and The New Yorker (essay, August 15).

One would think that such a topic would be a straight forward, uplifting examination of individuals and organizations devoted to improving the world. Alas, it turns out that practicing altruism is complicated. When a group of confirmed altruists get together, the debates are intense with conflicting positions.

One reason altruism is getting attention can be traced to the 35 year old Scottish philosopher, William MacAskill, credited with forming the modern movement on the subject. Mr. MacAskill has just published a new book on altruism titled What We Owe The Future. The book is expected to be a best seller. In the spirit of altruism, all proceeds will go to his organization dedicated to helping others.

Mr. MacAskill has spent his life agonizing over the threshold question of how one individual can do the most good for humankind. Years ago, he made his own calculations and determined that he would limit his income to twenty-six thousand pounds ($31,000.00) each year and would give the rest of his earnings away. Ironically as his organization called “effective altruism” (EA) has gained a worldwide following, his fund raising activities far outweigh his income.

Two issues complicate the life of an individual dedicated to altruism. First, how does one determine what activities will actually do the most good? Second, how does one reconcile being an altruist with living a healthy lifestyle, free of angst and depression, in a world so full of inequality, death and destruction?

The first question has caused heated battles within the altruism community. Traditionally, many philanthropists would favor giving to a favorite university, library or local causes in the community. The new view is that effective altruism is evidence-based to determine the best ways of helping others. Under this thesis, local giving may be seen as a personal indulgence to gain recognition rather than true sacrifice for the sake of the world’s neediest.

The modern altruism movement considers all human lives to have equal value.  A thousand dollars might buy one scholarship in Pennsylvania, four eye surgeries for children in Portugal or five thousand doses of deworming medicine in East Africa. When measured in what altruists call “quality-adjusted life years,” the deworming charity was found to be a hundred times more cost effective than the sight-saving eye surgeries. The Bill Gates foundation has used this approach in its decision to eradicate malaria. It has been determined that the most cost effective way to save human lives, anywhere in the world, is in the manufacture and distribution of insecticide treated anti-malaria bed nets.

Mr. MacAskill and his EA organization have come to favor a breadth of interlocking causes. Fifty percent of its funding goes to global health and development projects with the highest potential to save human life. Ten percent is dedicated to building the movement and for research. Animal welfare is a major issue in the altruism community and receives funding to promote development of alternative proteins to reduce demand for animal products. (Although MacAskill warns that giving to a clean energy charity will do more good than a lifetime of not eating meat.)  Lastly, programs are funded to support the relatively new concern for future existential risks. This includes threats like climate change, artificial intelligence, pandemics and genetic engineering.

When MacAskill first heard the call for altruism to address long-term risks, he was not sold on the idea. He felt there were too many real problems in the world facing real people to fanaticize about future apocalypses.  As the pace of scientific discovery quickened, his views changed.  He now believes “the world’s long run fate depends in part on the choices we make in our lifetime.”

This brings us back to MacAskill’s new book What We Owe The Future. It is a polemic on the moral imperative to take all necessary steps to influence the long-term future. He believes that humanity is in the early stages of development with three possible outcomes: extinction, billions of future unhappy lives or billions of future flourishing lives. The prescription for success is not an easy sell. It entails an individual duty to live a life of conscious self-denial along with financial contributions to the causes he champions. The conclusion is that a single person can make a difference in saving lives today and transforming the lives of thousands in the future.

Learning to live a balanced life while serving both present and future humanity is also complicated. MacAskill has undergone his own transformation over the years. Early on, he was often depressed and agonized over small decisions like what products to purchase and where to cut corners to give more of his savings away. Today, he is no longer overwhelmed by the magnitude of the world’s problems. He takes time off to enjoy life and prioritizes sleep, exercise and meditation. MacAskill now beleives it is possible to be comfortable and well-rounded while continuing to do the most good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL ELECTION

The Aesop Fable of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is an apt description of Democratic Party warnings prior to the last several national elections. Since 2016, each presidential and midterm election has been called “the most important election of our lifetime.” This November, the 2022 midterms are no exception. Democrats will seek to overcome traditional voting patterns giving advantages to Republicans. In the midterms, the national party in power always has an uphill battle justifying to voters two years of decision making, especially when a myriad of events can and often do go wrong.

Mark Danner asked in a recent essay in the New York Review of Books (We’re In an Emergency, Act Like It, August 18, 2022 issue), “What if this time, like the boy who cried wolf, we find ourselves screaming that the emergency is real – and no one pays attention?” When the wolf is at the door, we need to cry aloud with some solid facts to explain the emergency and avoid the catastrophe. Fear and anger can motivate voters and win elections.

President Biden’s low poll numbers and a series of challenges for the country explain the dire outlook for Democrats. These issues include high inflation levels and fraying trust in civic institutions — caused, in part, by Republican anti-democratic efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 

Danner’s essay urges Democrats to make crystal clear what is at stake in November.  He believes that American voters have not faced so grave a choice at the ballot box since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln defeated several candidates with southern sympathies and set the stage for the Civil War. He identifies an unprecedented series of first time crisis events facing the American electorate. He believes that unless the growing authoritarianism brought on by these issues is defeated at the polls, our democracy will continue to falter.

First, the 2022 midterms will be held following the only coup d’état in our nation’s history, instigated by the former president. Second, these are the first elections following a decision by a far right Supreme Court to abolish a fifty-year entitlement allowing women a choice on abortion. Third, this is the first election that will determine whether Republican state legislatures rather than non-political civil servants will be given the authority to determine who gets to vote, how the votes are counted and when future election results can be overturned.

If Republicans gain control of Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024, the America of the immediate future will be more authoritarian. We will be a nation where government can intervene in personal decisions − even the most intimate. This could include the use of contraceptives, whom you can love and whom you can marry. Large corporations will become less regulated.  The Medicare and Social Security programs will come under attack and could be reduced. Climate change will be ignored. Democratic institutions will be further weakened.  When it comes to firearms, the immature and the unbalanced will continue to walk the streets as heavily armed as combat soldiers.  

Danner believes that the Democratic ”cry wolf” alarm must be bolstered by a Democratic Contract with America, similar to the plan Newt Gingrich, then Republican Speaker of the House, introduced for his party in 1994. Such an idea is off to a positive start with the recent package of legislation passed by the Democratic Congress, including the Inflation Reduction Act. Voters must be reminded that a Republican controlled Congress will  reverse these gains. A concrete package of new legislation to help the middle class must be developed and articulated.

Danner concludes his essay with the observation, that the 2022 midterm elections need to be more than just about traditional issues, like the economy or cultural issues designed by Republicans to frighten voters.  He urges Democrats to “cry wolf” from the rooftops because the principles of our unique democratic government are at stake.

To keep Democrats in power, it will not be enough to hope that Trump “might” declare his intent to run in 2024 before November or that extreme right wing primary winners “might” be defeated by more even handed Democrats. President Biden, his administration, Democrats in Congress, responsible Republicans and each of us who care must all cry wolf with urgency and frequency. Elections matter. Getting out the vote for the midterms by motivating Democrats is essential.

My major criticism of the Danner essay is that it does not consider the aftermath of an unexpected Democratic midterm election victory. This would not be a case of “all’s well that ends well.”  If Democrats maintain control of Congress, I fear a right wing backlash similar to what happened in 1860 when Lincoln won the presidency and South Carolina succeeded from the union.  Republicans will invoke “stop the steal” and contest close elections across the country. Fringe groups will advocate violence. Republicans will rally behind Trump or a like-minded candidate to run in 2024.

Democrats must not let the November midterms be reduced to a choice between more authoritarianism if Republicans win or more division and violence if Democrats win. The Democrats must offer a positive alternative through the above-mentioned Democratic Contract with America. The plan must have broad, moderate appeal beyond the progressive wing of the party. Otherwise, the schisms that made the Civil War inevitable in 1860 may be repeated following this year’s midterm elections.

 

KENTUCKY IS ON MY MIND

 

The United States of America has one of the most complex cultural identities in the world due to its immense size and diverse heritage. Unlike most countries, America’s vast dimensions and immigration history have enabled the formation of subcultures that are often geographically determined because of settlement patterns and landscape differences. 

Kentucky provides a wonderful example.  The region is unlike the northeast where I was born and have spent much of my life. Its citizens often think, act, talk and vote differently than I. However, despite being poles apart, I have come to admire the people of Kentucky as much as any of my northern neighbors.  Kentucky is on my mind.

Months before the Ukraine war became front and center in our hearts and minds, Kentucky earned this spot following a terrible tragedy. During the late evening of Friday, December 10, 2021, an unusually violent, long-track tornado moved across Western Kentucky producing catastrophic damage through eleven counties.  The tornado traveled 166 miles, and 57 fatalities were confirmed. It caused 3.5 billion dollars in property damage.

Last week another once in a lifetime natural disaster rocked the Eastern Kentucky hill country. Flooding caused by six to nine inches of rain led to thousands stranded in the remote mountain hollows for days. As of this writing, there are at least 37 deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.

What struck me after both unpredictable disasters is the resilience of the Kentucky people. Governor Andy Beshear summed it up well: "These are proud, hardworking folks that have just lost it all, and I think the least we can do as human beings, as people with values, is to give and do what we can to get them back on their feet."  Everyone I witnessed being interviewed stated that Kentucky was their home and that they would rebuild.

Kentucky and Pennsylvania are two of only four states that call themselves commonwealths. In both, the urban areas are mostly Democratic with vast Republican rural areas. Kentucky is mostly “South” with a bit of “Midwest” mixed in. It borders Illinois, Indiana and Ohio to the north; West Virginia and Virginia to the east; Tennessee to the south and Missouri to the west.

Many people now living in the Appalachian Mountains of Eastern Kentucky are descendants of Scotch-Irish who immigrated to America in the 1700s. After the English persecuted these mostly sheep farmers, they left the British Isles in order to seek a better life. As the colonies became more populated, settlers began to push farther west into the mountains. The Scotch-Irish carved out small farms and homesteads in the remote hollows and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains. For the most part, they were and still are farmers, loggers, and coal miners. 

In recent years, I have developed a guilty pleasure in reading fiction depicting the people in and around the Eastern Kentucky hill country. Excellent authors like Chris Offuit (The Killing Fields, Country Dark); Brian Panowich (Bull Mountain) and new on the scene S.A. Cosby (Blacktop Wasteland) know their subject well. The stories are raw and violent, but the moral code from this unique geographical area is always the same.

First, no one living in the eastern small hill towns is considered a native unless the family history goes back at least a hundred years. Second, family is more important than God or country. If there is a dishonored distant cousin on your mother’s side whom you have never met, be prepared to seek retribution at any cost. Third, many make a living believing that the law and the government are not to be obeyed, but rather outwitted. Running moonshine, avoiding taxes, organizing rooster fights and collecting unearned government benefits are all admired endeavors.

Using Louisville as a dividing line, many would characterize Eastern and Western Kentucky as two different states. The vast fields of bluegrass in Western Kentucky have given us uniquely American bluegrass music. Bluegrass citizens love horses and look forward to the biggest party of the year, the Kentucky Derby. The Bluegrass Region is more affluent and cosmopolitan with activities that are typical of more urban areas.

Hunting season for a vast range of critters begins in August and extends through May. Most Kentucky citizens own several guns and go hunting on a regular basis. Concealed carry is legal for anyone at least 21 years old who can legally possess a firearm without a license/permit.

Kentucky has produced a varied collection of native sons. Four of the most renowned are Daniel Boone, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis and Mohammad Ali. The range extends from gonzo writer Hunter S. Thompson to country singer Loretta Lynn.

American diversity is not simply taking note of more recent ethnic and cultural differences that help enrich our urban communities. Diversity has been with us since the colonial period and has always made us a stronger nation. It is time to celebrate our amazing array of distinctive populations and to stop disparaging others for being different. In truth, for those seeking a lower cost of living and who enjoy outdoor activities, Kentucky makes an excellent place to live and work.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky (and other states outside of our immediate purview) help to define who we are as a nation. We are enriched by the unique history and culture of all sections of the country that define America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DO DEMOCRATS HAVE A PLAN?

 

“I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Will Rogers

For those of us who follow the day-to-day political news, being a Democrat can be a frustrating experience. Despite the Democratic presidential candidate having won the popular vote in seven of the last eight elections (though thanks to the Electoral College system, just five presidential terms), the party seems unable to decide what and whom it represents. Moderate Democrats and progressives are in conflict over many legislative initiatives. Well-pleased Republicans look on with a mostly united front, as Democrats appear to be bashing each other out of their slim Congressional majority ahead of the upcoming mid-term elections.

To quiet ones’ nerves, it is sometimes helpful to stand back from the news cycle and consider a more panoramic view of the Democratic Party. A recent book, What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party, by Michael Kazin, fits the bill by reminding me why I am a Democrat.

Mr. Kazin traces the history of what he terms “the oldest mass party in the world.” He believes that Martin Van Buren in the 1820s, not Thomas Jefferson, was the true father of the Party. Van Buren molded Democrats into a powerful electoral machine, complete with a network of local newspapers, nominating conventions and a spoils system of government jobs. My father, the nephew of a Democratic state senator, would benefit from Van Buren’s handiwork over a century later in 1949.  Harry Truman awarded him the plum position of postmaster in our small NJ town.

After Democrats found a charismatic leader in Andrew Jackson, two principles would guide the party until the 1960s. The first, Kazin calls “moral capitalism,” the belief that government should serve the interests of ordinary Americans not business elites. The second is white supremacy. Many Northern Democrats supported the right of their southern Democrat brothers to hold slaves and later supported the Jim Crow laws.

The original populist, Democrat William Jennings Bryant, believed that social change required using public authority to redistribute private wealth. However, his three presidential campaigns ended in failure because his message never caught on with industrial workers or the middle class. Finally, a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was elected president. He increased antitrust legislation and instituted an income tax on wealthy Americans. Neither Bryant nor Wilson had any interest in racial justice.

Democrats came to control the cities, and their political success was due to Irish dominated political machines. Industrial unions got out the Democratic vote. The unions took the Democratic Party to the left and gave FDR the influence he needed to pass the more radical elements of the 1930s New Deal. After WWII, a new breed of Democratic leaders, black and white, were anxious to dismantle segregation. Slowly, the two major parties switched identities with regard to race until LBJ’s Civil Rights Act sealed the deal. Republicans found a new home in the south.

The Vietnam War, feminism, the LGBTQ+ community and immigration issues all helped to further galvanize the modern Democratic Party. However, the conflict grew between socially liberal and fiscally moderate leaders like JFK, the Clintons and Obama and all-in progressive social Democrats like Bernie Sanders. Under its “large tent,” the present Democratic party has been unable to forge a coalition of working and lower middle class voters of all races.

As things stand today, Democrats can count on affluent urban voters, members of racial minorities and a majority of women. Conversely, Republicans have locked up voters in rural and “small town” America where declining industrialization and globalization have led to chronic economic decline. Why Democrats no longer speak to many white, working class Americans remains the great political mystery of our time.

In 2022, there are two problems with Democratic messaging. First, the Democratic “large tent” that seeks to attract both progressives and moderates has ended up angering one and then the other. Progressives believed President Biden would “go-big” and pass massive social reform, climate change and tax increases of the wealthy. On the other hand, moderates were sure that with a slim electoral mandate Biden would “stay small” and work to heal the damage Trump caused to our democratic institutions.

Second, the progressive left has opened up a cultural war can-of-worms by giving Republicans the opportunity to invoke a negative vocabulary with which to frighten middle class Americans. Democrats need these voters to move forward. The misused concepts of wokeness, cancel culture, defund the police, banning guns, Marxism, “offensive” public health mandates and critical race theory are all wrongly applied by conservative media. This has influenced white Americans to turn away from the Democratic Party.

What is to be done? Returning to the author Michael Kazin, he observes that historically Democrats succeed when they enact policies such as Medicare that serve all segments of the working middle class. He cautions that new initiatives must not be seen by white voters to benefit only minorities.

A winning plan will not be easy because it must walk a fine line between being too progressive and too status quo in order to keep a winning coalition together. All segments of the Democratic Party must be prepared to compromise starting with the Inflation Reduction Act now before Congress. With proper messaging and sound policies, the white middle class should return to their historical place under the Democratic tent.